Pages

Wednesday, 25 August 2010

Iamaddj/Kirby/Mkerr Triple Snowmobile!11 Rawr!

MKerr, of Chainfist and BoLS fame, put up the following article, which is a response to Kirby's article, which is a response to Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, the Premier of Iran, informing those of us in the Western World that, while the Russians power up a nuclear plant in his country, he has decided that Wound Allocation is a more important topic (perhaps just trying to divert attention?) and is in fact a rule that is so inherently wrong as to be virtually cheating. No, I'm not sure how you can get cheating from playing by the rules either.

To be fair, I think this is more the failure of the English language than anything else, as there isn't really a word to define the intellectual dishonesty of talking advantage of loopholes in an unsportsmanlike fashion without resorting to such a loaded word. Some of us, in fact, are more than a little annoyed with the flagrant and widespread use of the word across the Blogosphere and forums, to the point where they attack the use of the term itself. Personally, I would like to see some sort of distinction drawn between "cheating" (inadvertently playing the game wrong in a way that benefits one player or the other unfairly - usually through ignorance or failure at Reading Comprehension) and "Cheating" (intentionally garnering some sort of tangible in-game advantage by bending to a ludicrous extent, or outright breaking, the rules of the game. An example would be moving from front of base to back of base, an especial bugbear of mine.) - Note how this follows my own attempts to foster a division between the use in common wargaming parlance of the terms "competitive" and "Competitive". The former is something that can be used to describe any lose attempt, desire or ambition to win on the part of one or more participants (eg, an event that includes games will ALWAYS be 'competitive' because the aim of the Tournament is to win.) The latter refers to the more specific times when the competitors are ACTIVELY engaged in the process of trying to win - rather than perhaps seeing it as an unfortunate consequence of playing a table-top wargame, the players craft lists, tactics and playstyles with the singular purpose of competing in and winning games of toy soldiers, and thus having fun, primarily through the satisfaction of overcoming a challenging opponent.

It shouldn't need to be pointed out, but if I get any BoLS migrants commenting as a result of this article it is perhaps inevitable that the cry of 'WAAC' will come up. While I plan to discuss later in the week (or the one after) topics that lend themselves better into a description of WAAC and the unpleasantness associated with this divisive phraseology, I cannot simply let the comment sit, either. Essentially, it suffices for now to say that being Competitive includes the desire to compete, to pit yourself against the best and to overcome them in a fair and even fight. Since the concepts aligned with the 'WAAC Gamers' the internet hates so much are not compatible with the idea of fair and honest competition, these players can never truly be referred to as "Competitive".

Well, that's the lengthy editorialising out of the way.

What follows then is a mere snowmobiling of the oft-maligned article, but with a twistier twist than ever dreamt of by Chubby Checker - a TRIPLE Snowmobile!!!111!! The following is primarily intended for comedic effect, and should be enjoyed as part of a balanced diet of lies, misinformation, truth and dietary fibre. Please do not exceed your RDA of humorous content, as injury may cause pain or even death. Strap in, and join me in a drink (metaphorically, I don't have a drink large enough to encompass all of our bodies...)

Kirby from 3++ is the new black, pulled a classic Dick Move (I'm a secret fan of Dethron's blog, so props to Dethron on this article) in response to iamaddj's recent article on wound allocation. So he's fair game, right? To make it clear how this works, iamaddj's comments are in gray, Kirby's comments are in blue and mine are in this awesome shade of red. Mine are in this vomit-inducing shade of green. YAY!

(I loved Spy vs. Spy from the Mad Magazine. When I was growing up, I would look for those comics right after figuring out that lame, folding puzzle on the back cover (where those EVERY funny?). So in my article iamaddj is the ususpecting White Spy, which makes Kirby the ambushing Black Spy. Since I couldn't resist jumping in, I guess that makes me the little known Grey Spy (which is awesome because she always ended up winning, lol)!) I can't decide whether I'd rather be Solid Snake, James Bond, or Inspector Gadget. I'd be Tin-Tin, but that would open the door to a barrage of cruel gay jokes. The BACK door. Heh. Suppose being a Brit, I will assume the mantle of 007. Tis a far, far better thing...

Let's get this party started! Wow, wait, hold up. Am I going to let it go uncommented that you called Kirby's actions a Dick Move? Well, that depends. I have to decide whether or not you only did that to get a neat little compliment in for Dethtron...or if it was just a way to attack Kirbs disguised as a neat little compliment. In either case, what Kirby did certainly isn't more of a Dick Move than the majority of comments on BoLS seem to be on EVERY article, save caption competitions...and certainly not MORE of a Dick Move than this article itself. I won't pretend you were unaware of the irony as you wrote, you are far too intelligent for it to have passed you by. Still - I can comment, so I will.

"Just over two years ago, in an unpredicted and horrifying move cheating was legalized in 40K. Following GW rules = cheating. Oh, I knew I was doing it wrong.Abusing said rules "with the intention to gain an unforeseen and clearly unintended benefit = cheating" is more accurate, but not nearly as catchy. Who would get their panties all bunched up over that title? Maybe the primary concern of articles should be content rather than hits and therefore Ad revenue? Maybe some integrity would see less provocative nonsense, and instead we could discuss real issues...How did this happen? Two words, Wound Allocation. So what's the INAT FAQ then? Also two words?? I'll be honest. I have no idea what Kirby meant there. What a tool...

That's right my friends, two years ago Warhammer 40,000 5th edition was released, I thought it was recent from your last article.Burn! Oh yeah, iamaddj, you just got burned! Did you feel the heat?! If that's third degree, then you better go to hospital, even if it covers less than 1% of your total skin area.and something subtle and nefarious found its way into the ruleset. It seemed like such an innocent little rule at first glance. This rule was, again I assume, never intended to be used to allow people to cheat, It's a rule. How is it cheating?Yeah! It's a rule, lame-o! Wait, didn't you already use the "it's a rule" dig? Yeah! No way can you repeat yourself in commentary, or in articles in general! and yet it like Anakin Skywalker, was used and turned to evil. What's your excuse for abusing the English language and our retinas?Ha! Take that, iamaddj! What's your excuse? Tell me! That's what I thought. No excuse!Funnily enough a comment on the original - The article was indeed as poor as the Star Wars prequels, so good analogy, in that sense.The rule I speak off is the often debated and controversial wound allocation system. It's not debated it's clear cut. One wound per model before wounds stack. Wounded multi-wound models must die first unless there are varied wargears then you allocate first. Was that hard? Yeah! Was it hard? Umm. Hold up, Kirby. Easy to understand doesn't mean it's not "often debated". I don't think anyone is unclear on how the rule works; the debate is about how it's used to gain unintended benefit.To be honest, later comments in the article seem to decry this belief, Monty. But don't worry, I will highlight them when we come across them. The other issue here is this belief it is 'unintended' benefit. Truly, I find this to be horseshit, if you'll pardon my French. If you won't, then I find YOU to also be horseshit. No offence. I will return to this point.

Now last week I called out true Line of Sight. I said it was killing our games,You were wrong. 10-1 odds you are again here. Oooh! Another stinger! (By the way, if you plan to attack someone's use of language - which is lazy - then you should avoid starting a sentence with a numeral. It's one of those pesky grammar rules.)Very true. He should have said "I'll lay 10-1 odds you are again here." Kirby, everything else you say is invalid now. :( I said it was a plague upon wargaming, and I stand by that. But for me TLoS is a major plague on all wargaming, not just 40k. Wound Allocation is only a major problem for 40K. But in that limited scope, and by limited I mean the most popular and played wargame of all time, it is most likely the most serious flaw. Or lack of intellect.Lack of intellect is the game's most serious flaw? It's certainly an issue in the 40k blogging community.Actually, player stupidity is probably the worst part of most games. Without player stupidity (made all the more egregious when by otherwise perfectly intelligent people) forums would have shut down a long time ago without a regular influx of new thoughts (or rather, posts that THOUGHT they were new, but a simple search proves they are a pathetically common mistake.) That, or they become staid, stifling online morgues, where groupthink has reached such a devastating crescendo of silence that it intentionally seeks out and smothers dissenting opinion.

That's right, I said it, Wound Allocation is the single biggest flaw in 40K at this moment. I find that dubious. If you truly thought the single biggest issue with the game was Wound Allocation, then why on earth would you start with an article on TLoS, knowing it would turn off scores of potential future readers? Why waste any time fighting this insidious threat?!?!111?! Why, and how has it made cheating legal you might ask? Cheating - violating accepted standards or rules (thanks to Web Dictionary). Hey, wound allocation is a rule. Shut up.I think it's funny you had to look up the definition of "cheating". Since you were looking at the definition, you probably noticed it also means "to elude or thwart" -- to using a rule to get around another rule could be considered "cheating" as well. Well lets look at the facts. That's all the facts I need thanks. Yeah! Who needs all of the facts?! Not us! Books are for sucks!Let's pre-face this. Wound Allocation slows the game down when you get a bunch of different attacks and models particularly squads of multiple wounds such as Nobz and Thunderwolves being hit by some weapons which ignore armor, some which cause instant death and some which are just regular old wounds. Actually, wound allocation slows down the game whenever lots of wounds are applied against a complex unit, which is pretty common. It usually doesn't bring the game to a stand-still, but the player taking the hits needs to communicate where the wounds are going and deal with them in distinct groups -- which is always slower than just allocating wounds and some rolling dice. Not so much, since what he's doing is allocating wounds and rolling some dice. Ensuring your opponent is clear exactly WHY you are rolling a dice, at ANY time, is simply common courtesy. Sure, it makes the game a little bit slower than in previous Editions. Of course, people also complain at least as much when the game is sped up. Anyone else remember 2e close combat? Who'd have thought people would ever miss THAT nightmare? Anyway, your sentence starting 'Anyway' was an AGREEMENT, phrased as a rebuttal. Hardly the way to foster positive community spirit. When you have two players who know this system and have a somewhat decent IQ, it's not too bad. I thought you just said "lack of intellect" is the game's most serious flaw? Be consistent! MKerr...really? It clearly IS consistent. He says dumb people are a problem, then says that this other 'problem' isn't an issue when players are smart. I don't actually believe you didn't understand that.It's slower than what it was before (Wait , so you agree now?)but it also stops special guys only dying at the end. (Which is the opposite of the rule's intention...) I disagree. I won't claim any privileged knowledge of the topic, save that I dimly recall Alessio stating on the Podcast that the rule was expressly designed to CAUSE the 'premature' deaths of these models, Heavy and Special weapons, Sergeants and the like - because it was silly that their friends took EVERY shot for them, EVERY game.I imagine there are serious ways to streamline this but nothing comes to my mind atm. Probably that "lack of intellect" thing...Nice one. Did you feel that burn Kirby? Stick yourself under cold water for ten minutes, it doesn't look that serious. Given some of MKerr's other nonsense though, it may be an acid burn...Let's hear your thoughts on this. How can wound allocation be streamlined so it's quick yet special/sarges/heavies can die mid-game? Yeah, it's pretty easy to write an article poking holes in another article without suggesting any solutions. Isn't it? I could do this all day!

Wound Allocation Was Supposed to Help the Shooter

When 5th Edition was released all the interviews and production notes agreed, wound allocation was in the game to help the shooting player. Wound allocation had been added to the game to allow for the chance that the shooting player might kill one of the target squad's important members. I haven't seen any of these interview notes (In your face, iamaddj!) but yes,this was the concept behind this design (So you agree players are abusing it?) but I imagine GW designers having some understanding of math (since the systems they use are based on math) knew wound allocation actually improved a squad's survivability once you hit a magic number or if there were armor ignoring wounds, etc. Maybe they wanted the game more realistic lol.(Or maybe they assumed their players weren't douche bags and wouldn't twist the rule to gain a benefit none of them anticipated when they wrote the rule? No, you're right it's probably more likely they *intended* this from the start!) Well, seeing as how the Ork Codex was finished before 5e was, and the fact their playtesting was somewhat concurrent, it seem wholly inconceivable that they missed the prospect of Nob Bikers being fully complex. It is literally impossible this was something they were unaware of when creating other, more recent units that can take advantage of this rule, like...what's that unit Kirby JUST MENTIONED? Oh, TWC. Yeah, them. Or BA Honour Guard. Or a dozen other things, though most of them don't gain much/enough benefit to make it worthwhile. Simply put though - if they didn't want to allow us to play in this way, it would have been easy to restrict or eliminate entirely. Given that they haven't, we can ONLY assume they don't care one way of the other, or don't mind. Then again, I suppose the Nid Codex is a slight move towards limiting this issue, though that is a matter of interpretation. Perhaps the next Codex will give us a better indication of their current feeling on the matter, unless it is Necrons of course. We should really bear in mind that, to the best of my knowledge, the Nid Codex was the first that Alessio wouldn't really have been involved in...but then, the BA Codex offers decent shenanigan-related options here.

This was seen as a huge positive, a move away from the old style of play where the last model in a squad was also the most important, normally the sergeant or special weapon guy. Wound allocation was put into the game to replace the older "torrent of fire" rule which allowed the shooting player to force saves to be taken on a model of his choice if he did enough hits. But in the face of canny players this new rule backfired. How? This concept uh, well it works. Special models can die before their squad is wiped. Yes, it's possible -- just less unlikely. What is more likely is the rules are used to stack un-savable wounds on models that are already dead. So while Brothers Bill and Charlie get peppered with Lasgun shots, poor Brother Steve takes multiple Plasma Gun wounds to the pooper. As he said, the rule backfired -- meaning it had the opposite effect. Here we come again to player intelligence. If a player has even a rudimentary tactical knowledge, he won't be stupid enough to fire enough of the 'wrong' weapons and give the enemy an unwarranted advantage. Sure, it's possible to argue the rule backfired, given the extent to which people have gone to try and mould the rule to their advantage - but, again, Ork codex was in progress/done at this stage. I think I have one of it's playtesters on my contact list, I'll check later - frankly, this article doesn't mean enough to me to interrupt it checking now.

Many People Don't Actually Use Wound Allocation

The first major strike against wound allocation is that many, many people don't actually use it, or like the gym, use it infrequently. Because they are incapable, right? Because it's complicated?100% of my games use (and abuse) Firstly, that is unfair. Secondly, it is impossible. Knowing, as you do, that Kirby plays with multiple armies, it simply could not be the case that ALL of his games feature units capable of 'abuse' of the rule. Also, 'abusing' it isn't really defined. When is it abuse? Are a 3-man Ravenwing Attack Squadron with unique equipment abusing it? What if they have unique equipment because they only have one Special Weapon instead of the two they should have? it. When someone doesn't or forgets, we randomly roll to allocate the failed wounds because...it's part of the rules. (Randomly allocating the failed wounds because someone forgot is part of the rules? Sweet!) It would make more sense to ignore the rolls and go back to the Allocation Step, before rolling again. Still, that tends to aggravate anyone stupid/careless enough to have forgotten. Not doing so is cheating. Once again you've generalised from your personal experience which seems strange to say the least.(Aren't you also generalizing from your personal experience? Maybe he's just had a broader experience than you?) Possible, of course. However, the way he talks about the game doesn't lend much credibility to this theory.The truth is the wound allocation rules are a bit complicated WOW! Wait! It's more complicated...so it's NOT easy to understand?? and slow the game down. Spot on but you haven't explained how or why. Isn't that obvious? It's more complicated. It slows things down. Does he *really* have to prove it's more complicated than the old rules? Does he *really* have to prove complicated things take more time than simple things? Of course not! However, he should be clearer. If people aren't using it, as he claims, then it has no effect - like the old Torrent of Fire rule. If they use it infrequently, then OF COURSE a rule they don't use often will make things slower, as it is when a unit has the Rage rule, or you first play against a new Codex.On a normal squad of 10 marines w/Flamer/Sarge/MM it's not complicated. On a squad of 3x TW w/TH, SS, m-bombs being hit by 3x S4, 1 AP2, 1 S10 hits, well it becomes a bit more difficult.(Heck, the acronyms alone make the latter much more complicated...) Because of this many people just skip the allocation step. And that is cheating.Didn't you just look up "cheating" on the web?! Misunderstanding a rule (or mutually agreeing to change a rule) isn't actually cheating. Ugh. See opening paragraphs. 'Mutually' agreeing to change a rule mid-game IS cheating. Doing it before the start, not so - though then you aren't playing the same 40k as everyone else (on the web) and so have no right to comment on what goes on in our games in the fashion this (original) article does.

Its something I see a lot. "Oh you did 10 wounds?" rolls ten saves together "Well I failed four, so I guess these four guys die". That's common occurrence, and unless the squad was all exactly the same, its wrong. And cheating.(Or not.) In BRB 5e 40k, it IS cheating, every time. Just not necessarily Cheating.It in fact leads to the very thing wound allocation was made to stop, the most important members of a squad being the last to die.It's cheating, too.Umm, did you just switch sides? Iamaddj is saying the abuse wound allocation to keep your important squad members alive is cheating and you agreed with him. Aren't you supposed to be on the other side of this argument? (I recommend going back to the whole "GW rules = cheating" bit. It. Was. Golden.) No, quite clearly he is saying that ignoring the rule, and therefore using some sort of pseudo-4e casualty removal is Cheating. Y'know, seeing as how it is and stuff. Oh, and Shatner. Impression. For. The. Win. Because the rules are complex and unpopular [Wow AGAIN! Not easy to understand, brought in again. How unexpected...] they didn't get used much, especially by newer players which is a major strike against them. So they are cheating.Again, not following a rule because you don't understand it (new players) or find it too complicated or unpopular (meaning your FLGS has a different house rule) isn't cheating. Are you using UrbanDictionary or something? Unpopular doesn't mean that they have changed it. Still, I think GW should do some sort of survey. Participation should be made mandatory in some way, just to make sure we get a proper picture of the division in the Community over this HUGE issue.

Furthermore unlike TLoS, which many people say simplified the game, wound allocation just made it more complicated. [Again with the 'it makes the game harder on my brain' thing...]Correct but not using it is cheating...rather than using it being cheating like you said. The cheating part is the whole "using it to gain the opposite of the intended effect" thing. Oh. Well, since iamaddj made no real argument regarding whether or not it WAS intended, then Kirby's was a perfectly germane comment.For game balance though, those specials being able to die and who are much more likely to die the smaller the squad, is important. That's not really true, his example below showed all of the "specials" in 6-man unit surviving SIX plasma wounds. That's a lot better than it used to be, right? Mechanics and balance > ease of use. Sorry, can you say that again? "Mechanics and balance > ease of use"? So you are saying the rule is 1) being used as intended YES! and 2) provides some sort of balance to the game? What balance? Can you help me understand how 5E wound allocation makes anything better?Do I believe it needs a change to streamline it? Sure. Let's see if you offer up an alternative then and this article will just make me look like a douche then.Don't sell yourself short! You don't anything extra in that article to look like a douche! (Don't tell me you didn't see that one coming! Am I right? Or am I right?) It's like that annoying guy in Groundhog Day...Ned. All the same, I don't think Kirby's quite right, as surely 'ease of use' falls under 'mechanics' ?

Wound Allocation Slows The Game Down

Another major problem with wound allocation is that is slows the game down.You just said this.(Maybe it's something he's trying to emphasize? Like your whole "it's cheating" thing?) Unlike the old system where you rolled saves and then pulled guys as you wanted, wound allocation makes you take the time to allocate the wounds. While this slows the game down a bit, the fact that you then have to roll saves separately slows the game down even more. By seconds...the allocation is actually the pain and only when you get complex units hit by different types of weapons as you need to think of the best way to allocate the ignore save wounds. Actually, if a complex unit takes more wounding hits than it has members then things get complex -- mixing in wounding hits that ingore armor makes it even more complicated. Not often. Perhaps if it is a Fully Complex unit, but even then it's more common that one of the models will very much stand out and be the one to get the 'free' hits. Just like before, when characters with multiple wounds joined regular units. The rolling...is marginal (I don't think he's suggesting that the "rolling" part is more complicated [PROTIP - NEITHER of them are, they're saying, respectively, that it slows the game down even more, and that it only does so marginally. Twas crystal.] -- it's the figuring out what to roll part and then resolving them all individually that's more complicated), especially since the majority of people have different colored dice.(which has become a requirement -- not to handle different types of wounds, but to handle different parts of complex units) Which means it isn't any hardship to use differently coloured dice then. Oh yeah, and we used to use different dice for different types of wounds back in the day anyway. El oh el.

While every instance of wound allocation doesn't really take all that much time, doing it over and over again in the course of a game does tend to slow things down a bit. Worse so since many people just ignore wound allocation, this means you often have to stop and explain how it works. Here, wait, hang on...so, what you're saying is, people who don't know how to play the game properly are the problem, not the rule. Huh. Funny that...Many times in tournaments I have seen this bring games to a halt. This is the second major strike against wound allocation. Yes, that IDIOTS play the game. Great point Sherlock!Notice, also, how this is the SAME point as before. Now these are both bad things about the rule, but not quite cheating. No. It's not cheating. At all. It's the rule.(Awesome. Shatner. Impersonation. "Khhhaaaaan!") Suggs is the William Shatner of Ska.

Wound Allocation Actually Helps The Target, Not The Shooter

Ah yes, the cheating. So remember how wound allocation was supposed to help the shooter? It does. Specials can die.(Being intentionally obtuse is fun.) You would know, Monty.Well it really doesn't - instead knowing the wound allocation rules well almost always helps the defender. It does this, too. (Do you see how you just said two different things? Two completely opposite things?) If by 'opposite', you mean 'not opposite', 'not mutually exclusive' and 'entirely relevant to the discussion at hand and actually good counter-points' then, yeah, I think he DID see that.I've said it before and I'm sure the designers knew the math and the 'shenangians' that could happen.(It was probably in one of those interviews you didn't read, right?)One major case of this is with multi-wound model units. Remember a few years ago when Nob Bikers where the terror of the tournament world (they are still pretty annoying)? That doesn't mean much because they were never that scary. Over-costed and inefficient.(And yet somehow they still dominated tournaments. Weird.) Most players are shit. Also, a lot are idiots, who need explained to how Wound Allocation works...iaamaddjjjj said so.Well they were so good in large part because of the wound allocation rules. Or so people though but they actually weren't.(Again, maybe iamaddj has broader, or at least different, experience here -- I certainly remember them being a problem; and solely due to wound allocation rules) I kicked ass with mine - but a fair amount of that was due to the fact the new IG Dex hadn't come out yet, that a lot of my local opponents aren't as good as I...oh, yeah, and because this was circa 18 months ago, and people in general hadn't figured them out for the gimmick they are.Beat them once, and you can beat them anytime.Ideally with a multi-wound unit like Nob Bikers you would have to kill whole models, and that is clearly the intention of the rules. However players where able to find a loophole in the wound allocation rules to get around this. Namely the fact that is every model in the unit is equipped differently, which is possible in Nob Bikers you don't actually have to kill whole models. Instead by exploiting the rules you could put one wound on every one of your Nobs before actually killing any of them. Unless your opponent actually whacked them with S8+ weaponry. (Which were in ample supply before the release of the IG codex in 2009, right?) Sure, but no-one took them, because Assault Cannons were still all the Raeg with idiots...Eldar already had the tools, and the 5e SM Codex gave us fantastic tools for smearing Nob Bikes into paste. Anyway, even the old Guard had plenty of Lascannon and Meltagun access. TMCs were still tough for Nobs to deal with, and Oblits LOL in their face.

An even worse exploitation of the wound allocation rules, and this is really what I would call cheating, Following the rules is cheating? is the ability to just make wound vanish, just go away. Here an example of what I mean:

6 Space Marines (a Sergeant, a meltagunner, a guy with a lascanon, and 3 normal Marines) get shot by an Imperial Guard veteran squad. The Marines take 6 lasgun wounds and 6 wounds from plasma guns. Now your first instinct is to say "man they took 6 wound from weapons that ignore their saves, they should all die." And that makes sense. But then in comes wound allocation. The defending player knows the wound allocation rules, so he allocates two lasgun wounds each to the sergeant, the meltagunner and the guy with the lascannon. Meanwhile the 3 normal marines take the 6 plasma gun wounds. So the normal guys all die, but there is a good chance the special guys all walk away unhurt after making their saves. And those three extra plasma gun wounds that should have killed the squad? They vanish into thin air, victims of black magic voodoo. Let's try a more realistic example. 10 marines w/Sarge, special & heavy take 6 normal wounds and 6 ignore save wounds.(I'm been looking at the NOVA lists all weekend, I don't think I saw a 10-man unit in any of the 3+ save armies -- so how is this more realistic?) Easy Mkerr. It is more realistic, as a 6-man strong squad of Space Marines cannot exist with that weaponry, unless it has already lost 4 members through attrition in the game. making up fictional squads that mysteriously lose men in previous turns...or using the standard size of unit. Hrmmm...Now here's where wound allocation really kicks in, by taking multiple ignore save wounds on specials you reduce the actual number of average deaths. You then have an opportunity cost, lose a special but less models or lose more models but no specials? (...giving the defender an advantage they didn't have before by misapplying a rule intended to benefit the attacker...) Not misapplying. Misapplying would mean they used the rule in a way it was not able to be used for - this is not the case. Anyway, this is a fucking stupid example. If the IG player who finds himself in this tactical faux pas (a 1-on-1 situation with a Tactical Squad, where the Tac squad will end their turn in Assault Range if they survive?!?!) hasn't the wit not to use the Lasguns then they deserve to lose the game, irrespective of other factors. Oh yeah, and they would get 6 SHOTS with the Plasma, so they aren't LIKELY to hit with them all. More likely one dies (maybe two) and they get 4 wounds...still not enough to wipe the squad! *GASP!* Be Smart - don't help the opponent by creating these dumb situations in which they have every advantage. Regardless - if you killed the three Bolter guys, as above, then the Marines have a fair chance of fleeing...and I they don't, they can only shoot once each when they return fire. You have them next turn. What? It's Turn 6, and there might not BE a next? Well, you should have thought of that, when put in that desperate situation that meant you HAD to kill the whole unit this turn, with just one squad, and yet didn't have the brains not to risk the Lasguns.

So lets look at everything that is wrong with that example. Firstly wound allocation failed in all it's stated goals, it helped the defender and not the shooter, and it failed to get rid of the special guys while killing all the normal troops. So suddenly the shooter also has an option, shoot only with the plasma guns :O. (Again, that intentionally obtuse thing is awesome. It totally works for you.) Remember 4th ed was gun-line armies and GW moved away from that. This means assault armies have to be able to cross the battlefield somehow. Secondly it allowed the defending player to ignore wounds to his squad that should have killed people. Thirdly it was far more complicated than a simple, they took 6 wounds that ignore their armor, they die, rule would have been. And this took 5 seconds to figure out?(...and even less time to abuse!) Actually, NO, the old rule would have been - Count how many wounds inflicted, see it is equal to or greater than the number in the squad, Attacking player now allocates ONE, then the saves are rolled, with the allocated one rolled separately despite the fact that it is redundant to do so. IIRC. Oh, and 'should have killed people'...subjective much? Rhetorical much? Fuck off, Brent!

And finally here's the big kicker, it means the shooting player made a big mistake by firing all his weapons. See the IG player would have been better off just firing his plasma guns, with only the 6 plasma gun wounds the whole enemy squad would have died, by shooting his lasguns as well he actually saved his enemy. You mean, the shooter should of thought before hand and by being stupid and not, this is a knock against a RULE?How can you even defend that it's better to cause fewer wounding hits?Are you for real? Really? Are you criticsing MATHS? Cos...uh...it WOULD be better. That is CLEAR. I get that you don't like the fact that idiotic players, not the rule, are the problem here...but they ARE.And that's just wrong. In no system should shooting your enemy more times actually make it more likely he survives. Subjective, but hard to argue with in principle. Oh, apart from thatit's entirely sensible for a bunch of soldiers shooting at a target enemy unit accidentally (or not) shoot the same target multiple times, and miss a guy as a result/coincidence. It doesn't make any sense from either a logical perspective Shit! I thought I just did that one...oh, I did or a game play perspective. It's just bad. But specials staying alive until the end did. Got ya. Oh snap! I see what you just did there! Classic sarcasm! Sarcasm is poor writing technique...

So those are just a quick few reasons why wound allocation is a huge, huge problem in 40k right now. I thought it was cheating?And you wouldn't consider cheating a problem? Now I know it may seem like I just don't like change, like I just really want to go back to an older system. Who gave you that idea?Yeah!? Who gave it to you and could you ask whoever it was to give one to Kirby too? (See what I did there? I totally turned that one around on you!) Well that's not true. While I admit I really liked the old system of Torrent of Fire, that doesn't mean I want to go back to it, I think almost any other system would be better then the current one. And that's really the point I guess, the current wound allocation system is bad, really bad. It doesn't achieve what it was meant to, it slows the game down, and it very easily and legally, Whoa. Stop. ("collaborate and listen -- Ice is back with my brand new invention...") I thought you said it was cheating. Make up your mind. ("...to the extreme I rock the mic like a vandal...") exploited. And it's something we should talk about. Hiding our heads in the sand, saying things like "well that's the rules, we can't do anything about it" won't actually help. Waiting for your suggestions then...("...Will it ever stop? Yo! I don't know.") Help? Help, what? Help who?? Burying your head in the Sand-gina, more like. Booyah! Seriously - no-one will come and kick the shit out of you for choosing to play wrong - but you don't get to ignore rules you don't like on subjective 'reasoning' and then preach to us about how your way is better without deserving the aforementioned ass-whupping.

Talking about it, admitting that its a bad rule will help, telling people its a bad rule will help. Like an addiction? Seriously, I have no clue what you're on about here. It's just bullshit. Finding ways to house rule around it will help, short term and long term. So that's what I aim to do from now on, when I find a bad rule, wound allocation, TLoS, whatever, I'm never going to ignore it, I'm going to talk about. I have only seen complaining so far.Well, at least until you added that "petty, emo blogger attack" cherry to the top of the Bag of Douche Sundae. So now we've got complaining AND "petty, emo blogger attack". That's something, right? I hope you all will join me in talking about it, because remember at the end of the day it's our hobby. Quitting or keeping quiet won't help a thing, talking, arguing, about it just might. Or at least it'll make me feel a little better. Altruistic motivation my arse. If you want to promote discussion don't write an essay with a clearly negative overtone on why you think using a rule written by GW in their 40k rulebook is cheating.Yeah! Why would you believe your article -- which has attracted more than 400 user comments, forum threads and at least two other blog articles -- might lead to actual discussion, iamaddj? Clearly you don't know anything about "promoting discussion". You should try Kirby's technique of viciously mocking an article to a small, insular audience of like minded readers without contributing anything other than mocking vitriol -- THAT'S the real way to promote real discussion. Kirby's has awoken you from your slumber to actually write an article. Seem pretty good at stirring up comments to me. Comments =/= Discussion, as mentioned many times by other luminaries of the Blogosphere, and GW doesn't give a flying fuck what most players think of their rules, as has been made clear on many occasions. I don't understand where iammadinnerjacket gets off thinking this BoLS article would have any influence at GW HQ, when the topic has been moaned about PLENTY of other times across the Forumosphere. Rather provide some basis for discussion like:

"I feel Wound Allocation is a bad system. I feel it was designed to help shooting armies by allowing special weapons to not remain alive until the last guy but make it possible for them to die before plebs of the squad dies. (You nailed it, Kirby. That's what we need, more open discussions about our "feelings".) Wooo. Passive-aggressive ignoring the fact that iaminthevideoforrockdj based his article almost entirely in the realm of Subjectivity - aka, his "feelings". However, this system can be very complex and slows the game down especially when there are different types of wounds (i.e. instant death, no armor save, etc.) and multi-wound models which goes against what 5th ed 40k was really about, streamlining. Sure, but, as I mentioned, they can't have been (and remain) unawware of this, so they don't think it is a big deal. Furthermore, shooting with ignore save guns and non-ignore save guns can actually make you do less wounds! Whilst(Awesome use of "whilst", dude!) you can obviously make the choice not to shoot everything it seems counter-intuitive and perhaps bad for the game that shooting with more guns would lead to less deaths. What do you guys think? (Because all of the best articles need some sort of vote before coming to an actual conclusion.) Is this a bad mechanic for 40k or does it's purpose to potentially remove specials that important? What are some changes to perhaps stop the 'abusing' of this rule with multiple-wound models or speed up wound allocation? ("Can one of you readers take a stab at writing this article for me? Maybe if we all combine our efforts, we'll reach the requisite number of brain cells to come to an actual conclusion.")" Brain Vomit. Kirby ends a paragraph in typical BoLS-article-end-fashion, and gets to do the Lambada for it. Or gets lambasted, whichever.

See how much different that is. (You mean how you said exactly the same thing without actually taking a stand or expressing your own opinion? Yeah, it's WAY better.) It covers most of your points whilst (Awesome use of "whilst", dude -- you are totally going to get that deprecated word back into popular use!) I use whilst all the time, whilst doing other thingsproviding your opinion but is actually promoting a discussion rather than bitching and whining (and falsely accusing people of cheating).(But it's still cool to write an attack post mocking the article, right? That's not bitching or whining, right? Sweet!) I actually agree in regards to it slowing the game down ("...except for that part where I didn't agree -- you know, when I said things like "by seconds" and "rolling is.... marginal". But besides those times, I *totally* agreed with you.")Light years measure DISTANCE, not TIME but I believe the mechanic is very important for 40k and I think the biggest problem is multi-wound models like Nobs and Thunderwolves. Whilst (Holy crap! Another awesome use of "whilst", dude! You totally nailed that one too!) you could simply say any wounded models must have wounds allocated to them first (even with different wargear and excepting ICs) as a change, (...but don't do that because it would be cheating...) it's still going to be rather slow to someone who doesn't understand the game. So, let's hear your thoughts, what are some other options to help the wound allocation system out and do you think the mechanic is necessary in 40k. You may also flame, face-palm, rage, cry, rage war upon, etc. (You forgot Snowmobile, but I suppose it's implied) iamaddj to make yourself feel better."

Feel better, iamaddj? I know I do. I actually read that sentence 'You may flame iamallama to make yourself feel better.' I hope iwouldbemadetogiveadjabj DOES feel better. I hope we ALL do.

Disclaimer.

Primarily, a blog to discuss the Games Workshop system Warhammer 40k, though not exclusively so. All GW IP used without permission, no challenge intended.

Pretty much everything here is my opinion. If you don't like my opinion, you are welcomed to say so. If you don't like me, but like my opinion, feel free to say so. If you don't like me or my opinion, I don't need to hear it. Why even visit?